Roskill and Howard Davies Airport Commissions and the Third London Airport

Introductioncapital of the United Kingdoms dromes argon operating close to expertness and there are challenges associated with the location particularly of Heathrow airport, such as noise pollution and safety of Londons populace (DOT, 2003 Helsey and Codd, 2012). Capa urban center intricacy seekings consecrate been languish drawn over half a century involving two airport kicks and political intrigues (FT, 2014). The Third London Airport commission popularly know as the Roskill complaint anticipated growth in air transport and speculated that by the end of the century London might have to accommodate carbon million passengers (Abelson and Flowerdew, 1972). It was an appropriate estimate as the actual number was 115 million (CAPA, 2013). This ceiling has been surpassed and London airports are operating under strenuous volumes. The pursuit of an ersatz airport, additional runways to expand dexterity, among other options continue to feature in public discourse almost half a ce ntury later with unnumbered arguments and counterarguments (FT, 2014 The Independent, 2014). This report explores the works of the airports commissions (Roskill and Howard Davies commissions), as well as the circumstance of the controversial Boris Island alternative. It foc wasting diseases on the demand and supply of airports among other friendships significant for such ventures as the education of new airports or aviation facilities.History of commissions and development of argumentsA 1964 interdepartmental committee on the Third London Airport forecast that the capacity of Heathrow and Gatwick airports combined, withal with the addition of a second runway at Gatwick, would be insufficient for Londons air traffic by 1972 (Mishan, 1970). After the consideration of options, the commission on the Third London Airport (Roskill foreign mission) was set up in 1968. With their evaluation of the timing of need, expansion capacity requirement, and after a careful charter of a total of 80 proposed project sites, the commission nettly chose four sites, among them a new airport at Cublington (Abelson and Flowerdew, 1972). It was the first date that a safe range of environsal and economic arguments were brought to bear on a major investment decision, providing hearty and significant systemic evidence on which to base decisions (HC, 1971). Its excellency in approach and output was however to not much good as presidency, with a variant perception and opinion immediately rejected its findings choosing instead a intention to build an airport at Foulness, in the Thames Estuary (Mishan, 1970). Interestingly, this option had been considered and had been decisively rejected by the Roskill Commission on the basis of cost, distance and thingumajig to prospective passengers (FT, 2014). Neither of the two propositions (Cublington and Foulness) was built and a subsequent change in government and complexion led to the devise of a varied scheme a limited expansion of an existing airport at Stansted which was accomplished a decade after proposition. This option had also been considered by the Roskill Commission and neer made its shortlist of key options (Helsey and Codd, 2012). It was a predictable failure and is keep mum challenged by the lack of success in supporting long-haul operations by airlines, precisely benefitting from low-cost carriers (principally Ryan air) drawn by attractive landing charges which offset consequent inconvenience to their passengers (AOA, 2013). A proposal which has re-emerged and gained prominence is the new airport at the Thames Estuary.The Boris Island alternativeDubbed Boris Island as a consequence of its support by London city manager Boris Johnson, the London Britannia Airport (a name adopted for the latest iteration of the creative thinker in 2013) is a proposed airport to be built on an artificial island in the River Thames estuary to serve London. Plans for this airport go several years back but the idea was revived by the Mayor in 2008 (CAPA, 2013 Mayor of London, 2013). Proponents of the project cite the significant advantage it portends in the avoidance of flights over densely populated areas with consideration of noise pollution and attendant safety challenges. However, its critics who include some local councils, nature conservation charity RSPB, as well as current London airports, oppose the scheme, suggesting that it is impractical and expensive (AC, 2013b). It is still under consideration of the Howard Davies Airports Commission, which estimates the entire undertaking including feeder roads and rail to cost ?112 billion, about five multiplication the presently shortlisted short-term options (AC, 2013c). The overall balance of economic impacts of the project would be uncertain given the requirement for the closure of Heathrow and by extension London city for airspace reasons (CAPA, 2013).Renewed pursuit Howard Davies Airports CommissionIn spite of the myriad arguments and c riticisms of the various alternatives, not much has changed and the Howard Davies Airports Commission set up in 2012 still wades in the long running controversy (CAPA, 2013 AOA, 2013). There has evidently been little learnt in the several decades of bad policy making given the hedging, stonewalling, and political bear that still characterizes the endeavour, a readiness to oppose policies espoused by those of different complexions or the persistent complication of issues when there is requirement for bold action. This characterizes policy today as it did half a century preceding with elaborate models being grossly misused and deliberately disregarded. Minor challenges and disadvantages are greatly amplified overshadowing electromotive forcely more substantial benefits (FT, 2014). The Airports Commission was set up to examine the need for additional UK airport capacity and to recommend to government how this can be met in the short, medium and long term. The commission is tasked wi th creating economic, sustainable and socially responsible growth through competitive airlines and airports. (AC, 2013a). The findings of the Howard Davies Airports Commission contained in their interim report released in December 2013 (preceding a final report expected in 2015) are mainly focused on the continued growth of air travel, mainly in the South East of England. The Commission considers that the region needs an extra runway by 2030, and another possibly by 2050. On the shortlist for the expansion of airport capacity are terzetto options comprising a third runway at Heathrow 3,500m long lengthening of the existing northern runway to at least 6,000m enabling it to be used for twain landing and take-off as well as a new 3,000m runway at Gatwick (CAPA, 2013 AOA, 2013). Not included is the brand new hub airport in the Thames Estuary, which is side-lined citing uncertainties and challenges skirt the proposal at this stage (AC, 2013d). However, the Commission promises an evalu ation of its feasibility and a decision on its viability later in 2004 (The Independent, 2014). The Stansted and Birmingham options, however, failed to make the shortlist, although the decision remains render for their qualification in the long term (CAPA, 2013). In the Commissions view, the capacity challenge is yet to become critical although there is potential if no action is taken soon. However, capacity challenges and the jostling and vying for a slice of anticipated extra capacity by airports signals need (AC, 2013d).Arguments on the expansion of airport capacityThe Howard Davies Commission acknowledge the over-optimism in recent forecasts of growth in demand for the aviation sector, but consider the level of growing demand as adult requiring focus on the earliest practicable relief (AC, 2013c). This is in response to contentions by opponents that the current capacity is adequate basing their primary argument on earlier inaccurate demand forecasts. These opponents posit oper ational changes including quieter and bigger planes could serve to accommodate more passengers negating the need for ambitious and expensive ventures. Some also plead that encumber growth in the aviation industry would be the outflank option for emissions reduction and that government should utilise available capacity, pushing traffic from Londons crowded airports to others around the country, (AC, 2013b c d AOA, 2013 DOT, 2013). The Commission accepts the changes in aviation practice and aircraft design could deliver modest improvements in capacity but argue that none of these submissions suggested significant transformational gains (AC, 2013c). It also stresses that deliberations were alive to the issue of climate change and were focused on the bringing of the best solution for the UK, which entails the achievement of carbon targets and delivery of required connections for the economy and society(AC, 2013c d). The Commission notes that doing nothing to address capacity constra ints could have unintended economic and environmental consequences with the possibility of some flights and emissions being displaced to other countries (AC, 2013d CAPA, 2013 Mayor of London, 2013). Reliance on runways currently in operation would likely produce a clearly less ideal solution for passengers, global and regional connectivity, and would be sub-optimal in the endeavour to minimize the overall carbon impact of aviation (AC, 2013a AOA, 2013). To achieve statutory mechanisms aimed at operational efficiency and emission reduction are critical. Conservationists, such as the Friends of Earth, decry growth arguing that the building of more airports and runways will have a major impact on local communities and the environment (Mayor of London, 2013 AC, 2013b). The argument for sustainable growth is welcomed by industry players in light of calls for constraint (AOA, 2013 The Independent, 2014). Through time, the argument has significantly centred on the timing of need for expans ion of capacity with the uncertainty over growth and demand estimates. The drive for more intensive use of existing capacity is most appropriate in the short-term given that operational and aircraft design improvements have enabled the handling of more volumes than anticipated. Though limited, there is still capacity for improvement benefitting environmental conformity and overall efficiency. some(prenominal) tactical improvements are proposed by the Davies commission to enable full and efficient use of available resource and capacity (DOT, 2013 AC, 2013d). The Davies Commission proposes the encouragement of greater bond paper to schedules by airlines through stricter enforcement of aircraft arrival time. This would enhance efficient sequencing of arrivals ending the practice of stacking especially at Heathrow (Europes busiest airport), which is expensive in fuel costs and time and has adverse environmental impact. They also propose smoothing of timetables and the tackling of surg es in traffic and bottlenecks, such as restrictions of arrivals before 6am and the designation procedures of runways which impede efficiency (AC, 2013d). Also considered are mixed-mode operations which entail simultaneous use of runways for take-offs and landings. Through this mode, Heathrow expects to gain 15% in airport capacity without extra building (AOA, 2013). The Airports Commission rules out proposed mixed-mode operations suggesting its use when arrival delays arise and eventually to allow envisaged gradual traffic build up and increase in operations towards the opening of additional runways rather than a flood-gate of activity. In their consideration of noise pollution and impact on residents, the Commission recommends ending of simultaneous landings at both runways with an exception of times of disruption (AC, 2013d). Presently, Heathrow designates different runways for landings and departure which are switched daily at 3 pm to allow for respite for communities near the ai rport (AOA, 2013 FT, 2014). The Howard Davies Commission suggests that there might not be need for one huge hub airport as growth in recent years has come from low-cost carriers (AC, 2013a). This view makes the case for expansion of Gatwick Airport. In anticipation of confirmation of expansion priorities and solutions, airport bosses are at loggerheads with Gatwick bosses suggesting that it would not make business sense for their second runway if Heathrow is also given a green light for simultaneous expansion (AOA, 2013). This is in consideration of an extension of time to achieve return on investment from the expected 15-20 years to 30-40 years. Gatwicks case is compelling given that it is cheaper, quicker, has significantly lower environmental impact and is the most deliverable solution in the short term (CAPA, 2013). Heathrow rejects this argument insisting there is a clear business case for a third runway regardless of development at Gatwick. With the airport operating at 98% o f its capacity, they highlight potential for parallel growth delivering choice for passengers (AOA, 2013). Mayor Johnson is, however, opposed to Heathrows expansion citing the misery inflicted on a million people or more living in west London. He notes that there has been significantly more concern for the needs of passengers superseding the concerns of those on the ground. Johnson proposes focus on the new hub airport (Boris Island) to relieve impact on residents as well as to enhance UKs competitiveness (Mayor of London, 2013). Supporters of Heathrows expansion say it will be quicker and will help to maintain the UK as an international aviation hub increasing global connections. Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt are closely competing for this business (DOT, 2013).ConclusionThe psychometric test of need for additional airport capacity and recommendation of solutions for the short, medium and long term, has taken the UK half a century and two commissions and still there is no confirme d venture despite the raft of proposals. The earlier Roskill Commission reached conclusions on four promising sites-including a new Boris Island airport, which are still under consideration in the later commission the Howard Davies Airports Commission. Considering several arguments with regard to their mandate, the latter commission has proposed additional runways one at Gatwick and possibly two at Heathrow despite potential adverse effects to London residents. They are still to deliver a verdict on the new Thames Estuary project, promising a decision later in 2014 after evaluation.ReferencesAbelson, P. and A., Flowerdew, 1972. Roskills successful recommendation. In Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Vol. 135. No. 4, pp.467Airports Committee, 2013a. Emerging thinking Aviation Capacity in the UK. 7th October. Viewed from https//www.gov.uk/government/news/aviation-capacity-in-the-uk-emerging-thinkingAirports Commission, 2013b. Stakeholder responses to Airports Commission discus sion papers. 25th October. Viewed from https//www.gov.uk/government/publications/stakeholder-responses-to-airports-commission-discussion-papersAirports Commission, 2013c. Airports Commission discussion papers. 29th July. Viewed from https//www.gov.uk/government/collections/airports-commission-discussion-papers2Airports Commission, 2013d. Short and medium term options proposals for making the best use of existing airport capacity. 7th August. Viewed from https//www.gov.uk/government/publications/short-and-medium-term-options-proposals-for-making-the-best-use-of-existing-airport-capacityCAPA, 2013. The Davies Commissions Interim Report on UK airports the big loser remains UK competitiveness. Centre for Aviation. discussion section of Transport, 2003. The Future of Air Transport White Paper and the Civil Aviation Bill. online viewed on 14/1/2014 from http//webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http/www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/whitepapersFinancial Times, 2014. Londons new airport held to ransom by folly. December, 2013Helsey, M., and F., Codd, 2012. Aviation proposals for an airport in the Thames estuary, 1945-2012. House of Commons Library. Viewed from http//cambridgemba.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/sn4920-1946-2012-review.pdfHouse of Commons Hansard, 1971. Thhird London Airport (Roskill Commission Report). quaternate March. Vol. 812. cc1912-2078. HCMayor of London, 2013. Why London needs a new hub airport. Transport for London. Viewed from http//www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/26576.aspxMishan, E., 1970. What is wrong with RoskillLondon London School of Economics Airports Operators Association, 2013. The Airport Operator, Autumn 2013.The Independent, 2014. Sir Howard Davies Airports Commission Air travel could be transformed within a few years with no more stacking. 17th December, 2013